Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I'm not sure if this is a true statement or not, but due to the compactness, it seems like it should be. My attempt at a proof involves supposing it has infinitely many components, and then taking a sequence such that each element in the sequence is in a unique component. Since compactness implies limit-pint compactness, we know this infinite subset of has a limit point. From here, it seems like this limit point should provide a contradiction to the construction, but I haven't been able to show any contradiction yet...

Essentially what I want to do is show that a component is closed and open, and if there are only finitely many, we get this for free.

Note that this is part of a larger problem, this is just what the guts of my proof comes down to, so if it isn't true, the direction of my proof is entirely wrong...

Thanks in advance!!

share|cite|improve this question
By the way, we know that components in a compact, Hausdorff space are disjoint since components and quasicomponents agree. Thus, my sequence isn't too ambiguous... – notsure Oct 25 '12 at 15:53
Note the compactness doesn't imply sequential compactness in general. See… – Jason DeVito Oct 25 '12 at 15:56
That is certainly true, I wasn't suggesting limit-point compactness was equivalent to sequentially compact, merely that there had to exists a limit point of the sequence. – notsure Oct 25 '12 at 15:59

No, it’s not true. The middle-thirds Cantor set is totally disconnected, meaning that its components are all singletons. Since it has cardinality $2^\omega=\mathfrak c$, the same cardinality as $\Bbb R$, it has far more than finitely many components.

In fact it has an even stronger property: it’s zero-dimensional (in the sense of small inductive dimension, which is the usual sense when the term is used without further qualification), meaning that it has a base of clopen sets, and it’s $T_1$; every zero-dimensional $T_1$-space is totally disconnected, but not conversely.

share|cite|improve this answer
Thanks! I should have thought about that, it just didn't appear to me... Thanks again! – notsure Oct 25 '12 at 16:01
@notsure: You’re welcome! – Brian M. Scott Oct 25 '12 at 16:04

For a simpler example, note that $\{0,1,\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{3},\frac{1}{4}\ldots\}$ (with its natural topology as a subspace of $\Bbb{R}$ is compact, Hausdorff, and has $\aleph_0$ components.

share|cite|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.